Ron Coleman is a partner in the New York law firm of the Dhillon Law Group.
http://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/03/24/infinitely-plastic-morality-ron-colemans-thread-on-why-we-should-all-be-opposing-kbj-after-her-woman-crack-is-straight-fire/
Like Ron Coleman, this editor has been fairly resigned to the fact that with the Democratic majority Biden has right now, his pick for SCOTUS, Ketanji Brown Jackson will llikely be approved. Unless Manchin or Sinema suddenly figure out how batsh*t it is for a grown woman who wants to sit on the highest court in the land to dodge defining a woman but we’re not holding our breath.
That being said, we should continue to speak out against this nominee ... even when they call us racists.
Just read Ron’s thread, it’s much smarter than our rambling:
Ron Coleman ~ I was resigned to the confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the SCOTUS. I don't really understand her stand on CP but I didn't think it was enough to keep her off the high court. Judges are funny, and frankly if you don't have the Redweld, you never know about a case. ...
{Cont.} But I'm seriously troubled by her "I'm not a biologist" crack. It reveals a fundamental break with reality, far worse than the one that brought us Obergefell.
That decision was terrible, but at least it merely dealt with a legal construct: Marriage.
{Cont.} The logical and moral absurdities of pretending not to know how to define the two sexes are bad enough - very, very bad. This is especially bad for someone writing opinions involving the myriad laws premised on the parties' sexes in our vast social-engineered legal regime.
{Cont.} But the real problem is that it tells us one of two things.
Judge Jackson, an intelligent woman, may have bought into the Marxist / deconstructionist worldview of unreality - of shape-shifting facts, the rejection of empirical truth to achieve a policy result.
Unlikely.
{Cont.} More probable is that Judge Jackson is prepared to *pretend* that she believes such nonsense because that is the catechism of the day being recited in the Cathedral to which she is a committed acolyte.
This is the more dangerous and troubling possibility.
Why?
{Cont.} It is worse because while our Republic has survived many foolish judges and justices, this choice manifests a serious deficiency of *character* - an infinitely plastic morality.
The insidious effect of this mindset has already spread throughout our culture and institutions.
{Cont.} Yes, anyone opposing Judge Jackson's elevation to SCOTUS will be labeled "racist" by the people who do that.
But it is hard, if not impossible, to imagine that it will be the first or the last time that happens.
If we achieve anything with our polemics here, let it be this:
{Cont.} That we make the "racist" trope recognized for the empty, cynical and desperate ploy that it is.
That we do not shirk our own moral duty by avoiding the truth because of political and social orthodoxy and thereby become complicit in allowing it to reign.
{Cont.} And that we say what has to be said ...
even if it means we are accused of doing something more insidious than expressing a public view ...
about a public issue of widespread importance ...
involving a highly accomplished, decent and intelligent product of her time and place ...
{Cont.} Who should not sit on the United States Supreme Court.
Ron Coleman ~ OK ...
What Ron said. All of it.
Even about making donuts.
Hey, it’s always a good time for donuts.
| 
